View Single Post
Old 02-18-2009, 11:28 PM   #15
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Yeah, war is good because it restores the balance that was lost when death rates declined in developing states. You can't sustain a population of our size with our demands at the same time. Technology can only go so far, but our habits and way of life are just as important to change.
Strange, I was under the impression that innovation was done more out of necessity. It may take a redesign of buildings to accomodate a changed world. It may take learning techniques to reclaim uninhabitable land... say teraforming deserts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
The Earth's carrying capacity is only so great and although we can push it with technology. What population we have at the moment is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, but we're sacrificing future needs for the present. We are going to have to realize that more people will only push demand for resources higher while supplies dwindle even faster.
What resource defines the earth's carrying capacity? Food? water? Land? Energy? Perhaps reaching that upper limit will drive us to look seriously at teraforming other planets. I honestly do not believe that we'll ever get to that point. I think we'll just find more efficient ways of producing what we need. Perhaps we'll begin by colonizing the floors of the oceans. Having served on a Nuclear Sub, I can tell you the only thing we couldn't produce ourselves was food. Given enough starting resources, it would be possible create our own food underwater as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Choice: what would you prefer? A cheaper way of life and more children, or living well with fewer people and more abundant supply of food and energy?
Neither. Your choice assumes those are the only two options. Another option is simply that we find a way to adapt to a hyper populated planet. The other option is to branch out and learn how to adapt other planets to our needs.

I mean we could use global warming to create a livable world elsewhere... or more likely make more of earth habitable by humans, and by the same token learn new farming techniques to more efficiently produce the required foods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious View Post
War is an unethical way to lower the population. Starvation won't do the job either. No, we're just going to have to learn how to reuse all of our resources, probably the hard way. That, and eventually we'll have to expand into space. As is the nature of organisms such as we. Struggle for existence and all.
Sorry, I just don't see war as any less ethical than forced sterilization, or forced abortions. As to the expansion, see my previous answer in this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious View Post
Although, it may take too lng for our genes to slow down fertility rates, and thus, though it is a somewhat controversial idea, future generations might end up having a need to tweak the genes behind fertility a bit.
[sarcasm]Oh yes, that is much more ethical than allowing war/disease and famine kill people off. [/sarcasm]
Adjusting genes WILL have other unintended side effects. If you tweak the gene, and that gene mutates, we could have a situation where the entire population becomes infertile. Doesn't that seem a bit harsher than a few little wars here and there?
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,